We cannot assume that the West's intervention in Libya is benign.

We can no longer make this assumption about the military activities of the West following Iraq.

It is clear that the Libyans desire freedom from oppression and if our hands were not already blood-stained and copy-books riddled with fewer lies we might have been able to walk into that conflict on the side of those whe seek freedom without being open to criticism. But never again can we be trusted.

I speak not as an American but as a British citizen. What are we to assume? That the same sinister forces at work behind the Iraq invasion have simply disappeared?

Are we to assume that their preference for the murderous exploitation of resource will be waived simply because this conflict provides an opportunity rather than a planned target?

I am torn between conflicting desires and not sure what to cheer for anymore.

This is not a simple situation...

Your last sentence is dead on.

because for 40 years he proved he had Libya well in hand. That meant a steady oil supply. Companies could count on contracts executed last year being honored 5 and 10 years out. But now the Col. is old and close to death, and Libyans are showing that he doesn't have control or legitimacy in Libya anymore. If he manages to put the rebellion down militarily, he is still old and Libya is still out of control. He will not forgive the rebels as individuals, families or towns. There will be reprisal slayings of people suspected of being rebels or having rebel sympathies. For their part the rebels will not forget that they want him dead and his cult-of-personality government overthrown. The reprisals which have been promised by Gaddafy from the outset will make it impossible for them to forget. Troubles in Libya will not end with the recapture of Benghazi by Gaddafy's loyalists and mercenaries. The rebellion will become a resistance. The rebels won't strike at Gaddafy's govt directly anymore. They will sabotage the source of that government's strength, which is the oil.

Suspecting this, how can western powers feel the same way about Gaddafy as they did before? Before the revolution he was a devil you could do business with, but now he's just a devil.

It's a pity your clarity is not readily available to others posting here...

Have we learned nothing?

at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=565331&mesg_id=565331

-- as usual, EXTREMELY helpful.

That is how world wars get started...this imo is NOT one of those times. Lybia has been an off and on again friend, but it looks like Omar finally had the welcome mat pulled out from under him. Shouldn't have let his troops mow down protesting civilians, THAT is what caused this intervention. That and the fact he is a tiny country that can easily be toppled by large conventional forces (think Grenada).

US fought our own wars, now fight yours. Or is your government saying that this time, is different. It's really about humanitarianism? It's different than all the bullshit conflicts we've been in.

Maybe certain people in Libya want the West's interference? Are they paid stool pigeons? Is is really just some other god-damned dictator who will step in after Moe? How many civilian casualties will there be - it's not like those missiles are really exact? Will it create more hatred in the Middle East for the West?

Who are the "bad" ones and who are the "good" ones? This will not turn out any better than any other ME conflict we've stuck our nose in. Over a million Iraqis dead, no democracy after 8 years of fighting. I wonder if those million Iraqis would have thought how things turned out were worth it?

Its less than 5%.

Not that I really care but really...

Anti-UK poster, I think

I have been away for several hours and looked at it quickly and misread it.

Now deleted. Thanks again.

The US get less than 2%.